The Tom Story in Mudbound

The Tom Story
Both Mudbound (2017) and Detroit (2017) seem to mobilize “the Tom story” in ways that seem significantly interesting and different to me. Neither film, for instance, really makes the viewer feel a kind of self-righteousness from a distance—at least not in the way that Williams describes occurs in To Kill a Mockingbird. In the novel, the reader can comfortably shake the head at the treatment of the innocent black man. In the film Mudbound and the film Detroit, the viewer is really too caught up in the horror and the nightmare of what is happening in the moment to be able to feel self-righteous about how he would have handled it differently. There is no distance in the watching of the films. The action is too immediate and the viewer too wrapped up in the unfolding of the drama for “the Tom story” to really have an effect—and that is mainly because of the nature of the medium. Film makes the viewer into a passive participant of the action. In a novel, on the other hand, the reader is an active participant: the work does not go on without the reader’s permission, who can set the book down at any moment, stop and think about a scene, and continue on. A film will simply keep playing even if the viewer slips into a meditation on events. Rather, when watching the films, the viewer is left with a sense of pity and fear—essentially the feelings of what Aristotle (1970) claimed made for good tragedy.
The films do, however, utilize the concept of “the Tom story” in their own ways and interweave them into the story lines so that the characters themselves are left to deal with the reality of how they might have handled things differently. In Mudbound, the white Jamie is forced to choose the punishment delivered to the black Ronsel, and in Detroit, the black Dismukes is forced to see the white Krauss go unpunished for his role in abuses at the Algiers. In both films, the essence of “the Tom story”—the feeling of audience-jury condemning the racial injustice is felt—but only because in the films the audience is invited to share in this feeling with the two main characters—Jamie and Dismukes. Jamie smothers Pappy to death in revenge for his brutal attack on Ronsel and Dismukes confronts that deviant Krauss after the trial. Neither action is really satisfactory: Jamie goes on to leave his family in disgust and Dismukes goes on to try to escape the racism of the city by going back to the suburbs to be a security guard in anonymity. The audience is invited to shake their heads collectively at the racism that continues to exist in the world—but only once the action has concluded and the audience is able to catch its breath.
While both films also depict events that occurred decades ago and can thus be viewed safely from a distance, from the vantage point of the 21st century where the audience can look back at the way people behaved in the past and feel that now things are different, the reality is that the audience of today is living during the era of Black Lives Matter and knows that things have not changed. The audience of today is not likely to feel that the racism depicted on the screen is of a bygone time. It is more than likely going to feel like an immediate issue that is as pressing today as it was in the time when the drama is depicted on the screen. In the post-war period in which Ronsel is muted, or in the turbulent 1960s when so many murders were being committed—from that of JFK to MLK to Malcolm X to RFK and others, racism was alive and strong. Yet, the audience of today should feel that the same racism of then is still operating today. The viewer should sense that nothing has changed. Indeed, that appears to be the point of both films—that the racism never really goes away in America. One almost has to leave, slip into anonymity as Dismukes does, or go to Europe as Ronsel does, just to get away from it. The typical American viewer is more than likely going to feel that the race issues of the films are still pressing. As Meer and Nayak (2015) point out, race and racism are still hot topics in universities, which means that young students are continually thinking about these issues. Therefore, the films are bound to be seen as relevant reflections of a problem rather than an opportunity for the viewer to engage in a bout of self-righteousness.
However, as Rapping (2015) points out, everyone needs a little idealism. The grim realities of Detroit and Mudbound are brutal renderings. They do not permit for much hopefulness. Ronsel goes back to Europe and is reunited with his child and lover—but he is now a mute. Jamie leaves his family and roots behind altogether. Where he goes, no one knows. There is not much idealism in either case—and one feels that at least in To Kill a Mockingbird there was the sense that one could still struggle to overturn the system. That is another way in which the two films spin “the Tom story” and make it unique and interesting: neither is really interested in depicting an idealistic aim.
In conclusion, the two films show that racism can occur anywhere—in the South, in the northern city, across the seas. Racism is a mentality and the point that the film makes is that this mentality is ingrained in the culture and fabric of the U.S. People do not understand how to deal with it. There is no sense of how to get away from it or how to confront it. The films even give the viewer the impression that it is almost futile to try to oppose it. Unlike in To Kill a Mockingbird, the films suggest that the viewer’s best recourse is to try to feel pity and fear—pity because of what happens to those involved, those who suffer; and fear because one senses that all of this could easily happen to anyone.

References
Aristotle. (1970). Poetics. (trans. by Gerald Else). MI: University of Michigan Press.
Meer, N., & Nayak, A. (2015). Race ends where? Race, racism and contemporary
sociology. Sociology, 49(6), NP3-NP20.
Rapping, J. A. (2015). It's a Sin to Kill a Mockingbird: The Need for Idealism in the
Legal Profession. Mich. L. Rev., 114, 847.